Senator Rand Paul has generated a firestorm over his apparent flip-flop on drones used by the US government to kill American citizens on US soil.

Last month, Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor was the most sweeping denunciation of the Obama administration’s liberal use of drone warfare ever in Washington.

“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court,” Rand declared.

That’s pretty unequivocal. But then, following the capture of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Paul had a different attitude:

Paul’s support from anti-drone libertarians on the left and right, which had soared after the filibuster, seemed to crash down upon him in the wake of these comments. People were angry. So Paul released a statement. Here it is in full:

My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.

Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.

Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.

Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind.

This is not exactly an illuminating explanation. Saying, “Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations,” one day after saying, “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him,” doesn’t make any sense. He didn’t repudiate his comments on Fox as a misstatement, he just argued the opposite of what he himself said mere hours before.

In the midst of the man-hunt for Tsarnaev, people became numb to the showy, militarized response to the crime in Boston. In such times, people tend to more readily give up their liberties. They tend to be more willing to grant government powers it previously didn’t have. Maybe Paul was caught up in the moment of the national crisis, swayed by the mass fervor.

Or maybe Paul got lost in his own political strategy. For a long time now, his modus operandi has supposedly been to pick and choose his battles, pressing the Republican Party in a more libertarian direction when it makes sense, while placating the right on other issues they’re not ready to move on yet. Maybe Paul just forgot which buttons he was pressing.

There might be other explanations, but unless his comments on Fox the other night were simply a fluke, this controversy doesn’t look good for Paul’s “principled stance on drones.”

Update I: It’s worth mentioning too that this controversy happened in tandem with Rand’s sudden decision not to attend a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the legality of the drone war. He was supposed to attend, then his office said he had a scheduling conflict. I don’t doubt that that’s true, but given his 13-hour filibuster and its political aftermath, this hearing should have been a top priority for Rand. What could have been more important than following up his 13-hours of anti-drone rhetoric with an actual Senate hearing scrutinizing the President’s drone policies not just at home but abroad?

Update II: I’ve been informed that the drone hearing I mentioned in Update I was rescheduled three times, and that is the reason for Paul’s absence. Additionally, Paul’s office has posted a YouTube clip of his Senate filibuster in which he does indeed appear to be consistent with his Fox News comments on Monday.

Despite the apparent consistency, it is nevertheless confusing to hear him say that on the one hand “Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations,” but that the liquor store hypothetical is acceptable for lethal drones. A man leaving a convenient store with money from the register and a gun is perhaps the quintessential “normal crime situation” one can conjure up.

At the very least, Rand needs to lay out precisely when lethal drones can be used domestically and when they cannot – and what a “normal crime situation” is and what it isn’t. Once he does, it may very well be a disappointment to those that loved him for his filibuster.

1943118 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Fantiwar.com%2Fblog%2F2013%2F04%2F24%2Frand-paul-equivocates-on-drones-and-due-process%2FRand+Paul+%3Cdel%3EEquivocates%3C%2Fdel%3E+Confuses+on+Drones+and+Due+Process2013-04-24+14%3A12%3A13John+Glaserhttp%3A%2F%2Fantiwar.com%2Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D19431 to “Rand Paul Equivocates Confuses on Drones and Due Process”

The cop is not there to kill the liquor store robber. He's there to arrest him. Killing is a last result. Drones do not arrest. They're there to kill as a first resort. That's the reason their use should be illegal.

Another one looking like they are just another sell out politician. People keep looking for one politician that is actually honest and will fight for them, whether it's Rand on the right or Warren on the left, and they can't even get that, they all are full of hudden catches and nowhere to be seen when it actually matters. Not even one honest policitican?

Explicitly. Ron Paul is a true Christian. He is the truest Christian I have ever heard of. He believes that good in men will eventually prevail if you just manage to awake them. Rand, his son, has not yet attained the wisdom of his father, and still feels youthful impatience in front of problems that sole reason cannot solve. So he seeks bypasses around the mountains that look down on him. If he is his father's son, and I believe he is his father's son, good will always prevail in him. Be critical when he makes errors, but be benevolently critical, do not spit and throw stones.

And if you think that mountains is too flattering a term, they are mountains, artificial mountains, granted, with no substantial cohesive matter, granted. If you try to just blow them up, the resulting "bomblets" are likely to cause more "collateral" damage than any solid explosive. So, give Rand a break, please.

The malestream media couldn't even grant women tokenistic majority status in fashion reporting. If HBO were to do a sitcom about the voices of this generation that reflected just who had the power to speak

This is quite wonderful post. The article affects a lot of urgent challenges of our society. We can not be indifferent to these challenges. Your post gives the light in which we can observe our real life. Very professional.http://topinversiontablereviews.com

U.S. and Syrian flags, and chanting slogans at the thousands of passing motorists, many of whom honked and waved their approval. The group numbered roughly 70 at their peak during the three-hour rally, with dozens arriving and leaving during the event.

Needed to compose you a word regarding the nice opinions you have contributed. Your good knowledge in playing with all the pieces is very useful. To be honest, this has been one outstanding blogsky contact number

You have some really great posts and I feel I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I'd love to write some material for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine. Please shoot me an email if interested. Thank you!walmart medical alert systems